This weekend, Yossi Gurvitz accused former MK Muhammad Naffa, secretary-general of the Communist Party of Israel of backing the suppression of the Syrian uprising. Uri Weltmann, a member of the Communist Party of Israel, denies these allegations and clarified the party position in a post published today. Yossi Gurvitz replies below:
I have closely read the words of Comrade Uri Weltmann, and I’ll try to keep my comments brief and to the point:
1. When all the dust settles, is Hadash willing to say unequivocally that it opposes the Assad regime in the same way it opposes the Israeli regime in the occupied territories? If not, why?
2. Your article claims I both lack sufficient understanding of Arabic, and that I have no control of the language at all. The latter is correct, and I never claimed otherwise. This being the case, I have to rely on trusted friends who do understand it. One of them, Uri Sabah – who, unlike me, supported Hadash in the last elections – translated the article which appeared during the weekend as the main item in Hadash’s Arabic site (Hebrew). The piece, which is a statement of the Syrian Communist Party, does not refer to the Assad regime by name, and referred to “attempts to create sectional divides and assaults on the army and security forces” which supposedly were carried out by the rebelling Syrian civilians. On the other hand, the activity of the so-called “security forces” are referred to as “armed clashes” and “attempts to instill fears in the citizenry.” No mention whatsoever of large-scale massacres, torture, and the fleeing of refugees. Why did Hadash decide to put this article in so prominent a position, for so long?
3. Given that the position of my post was that Hadash was saying two different things in Hebrew and Arabic, I fail to see the point of referring me to an article by Tamar Gozansky, written in Hebrew.
4. The so-called denunciation by Muhammad Naffa of the actions of the Assad regime goes: “We support that the brave Syrian people will receive all of their rights, and we oppose the corruption, the State Security courts, the arbitrary arrests, the emergency laws, and the attacks on the freedom of expression, and other freedoms.” Again, this omits any mentions of massacres, torture, and expulsion, and is mild indeed when compared to the rhetoric of the CPI towards the Israeli occupation regime.
5. I am pleased to hear that Naffa’s statement of the beginning of May 2011 was finally published on the CPI’s website, and that it will also appear soon in print. One wonders whether that would have happened without Algazi’s post.
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
David
Reality hits the fan.
It’s like the European Communists applauding Stalin while he was murdering his brood.
Amos
Gurvitz originally purported that the ICP makes seperate, discrepant, messages in Hebrew and in Arabic. Not knowing any Arabic himself, he unquestioningly relies on one single piece written by an embittered former-Communist. When confronted with the blatant fallacies, obfuscations and outright slander in the piece — which, again, is all he relied on — rather than a dignified apology (_modeh ve’ozev yerucham_) he simply switches to other matters with an equally indignant tone. Unfortunately his new accusations are as feeble as the original.
It could very well be that the ICP stance on the uprising in Syria is wrong, but Gurvitz doesn’t really seem to care for it. His rage lies some place else, and once he found an opportunity to attack the ICP he can’t let go even when he’s simply wrong.
An intelligent discussion on the stance of the ICP vis-a-vis Syria would continue to analyze the position of Turkey, [which was condemned by Nafa3 for being hypocritical], American policy in the region [http://bbc.in/j3AEg8], and the use of weapons by the protestors [the ICP isn't a pacifist party, but should it a-priori condone all use of violence? weren't the demonstrations in Egypt and Tunisia that much more effective because of the prevailing tactic of _salmiya_?].
But somehow none of this matters or even interests Gurvitz. All I read in him is “Communists-bad, Communists-liers, Communists-evil”. He seems to be frozen as a carticature of a Cold-War anti-Communist liberal, which doesn’t seem to realize that the ICP is at the forefront of progressive political action, the home of joint Jewish-Arab struggle for a better future.
Miki
I am not an Israeli, but am an international activist, who is also an active socialist, so have been following this debate quite closely. The socialist tradition, I come from is different from the Israeli Communist Party (Trotskyist as opposed to Stalinist)so I am more interested to learn what their real position is rather than trying to either defend or condemn them blindly. It seems to me Gurvitz’s response to Weltmann is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, as I understand it, the Israeli Communist Party and Hadash are in fact two separate organisations. Communist Party members, its true, do play a leading role in Hadash but Hadash also includes non-Communist Party members. As I understand, Hadash’s positions, while similar to the ICP are not necessarily an exact carbon copy and may vary slightly or even greatly at times. Why then is Gurvitz conflating the two – not only in his rebuttal but in his original article as well? A statement by the Israeli Communist Party is not a Hadash statement and vice a versa. On Gurvitz points in response to Weltmann, it seems to me that Gurvitz’s response are very weak and amount to little more than sectarian nitpicking and the inability to admit he was wrong. Gurvitz’s point 2 quotes a statement by the Syrian Communisty Party which was printed in the Hadash newspaper, which nit picks at the phrasing of their statement. Whether or not the Syrian statement is lacking in sufficient condemnation or not, is really not the point. The point is that it is a statement by the Syrian Communist Party NOT the Israeli Communisty Party or even Hadash, so why is Gurvitz trying to imply that it is a ICP position when its not? It should be pointed out that socialist press around the world often will reprint articles or commentary of other socialist organisations even if they do not 100% support the position advocated by such groups. They are printed to provide an opportunity for extended discussion and to provide a view from socialist groups on the ground. Printing such a piece does not mean that you have adopted exactly the same position. Hadash’s mistake (not the ICP) may well have been to not have included some critique of the Syrian CP statement but even if this is the case, Gurvitz criticism is still lacking primarily because as pointed out the Hadash is a separate organisation to the ICP. Gurvitz’s piont 4 engages another bout of sectarian nit picking – the statement by Naffa is a clear condemnation of the Assad regime but Gurvitz refused to accept it because it doesn’t include a list of every single crime the Assad regime has committed. I write regularly on Palestine for both socialist and non-socialist press and it is impossible to list every single crime, every single time, of the Israeli Occupation Forces, but just because I don’t include every since aspect of their criminal activity doesn’t mean they are not being criticised or condemned. It seems to me in arguing in point four as he does, Gurvitz is simply trying to deflect attention from the fact he stuffed up, got it wrong and slandered the CPI without any actual proof. Proof has now been provided that his assertions were incorrect, but he refuses to have the good political sense to admit he was wrong.
Yossi Gurvitz
Miki,
1. As soon as Hadash will distance itself from Maki’s position, I will take note. At the moment, this is a shell game.
2. The position of the Syrian Communist Party (err, sorry, the Communist Party of Syria) was published prominently for several days in Hadash’s website, without criticism. This is generally considered to be an endorsement. Furthermore, I fail to see the difference between the position of the CPS and that of Naffa.
3. So sorry. When thousands of people are massacred, and all Maki/Hadash can speak of is “attacks on freedoms”, this is moral cowardice and a week endorsement of the regime. Imagine if, following the Kfar Qassem massacre, Maki would bemoan the loss of “freedoms” of the villagers. Can’t imagine that? Neither can I. When you habitually use inflammatory rhetoric in one case, but use a much milder one in a much more serious case – well, then, you’re a hypocrite, and it needs pointing out.
4. As for the Hebrew/Arabic divide, again, I’m not at all certain that Maki/Hadash would have published the same texts in Hebrew, were it not for Algazi’s post.
Amos
1. Aljabha (_hadash_) is not a party, but like the name suggests (err, sorry, you don’t speak Arabic) it’s a front. Not every position of Tarabut (another party that is part of Aljabha) is fully endorsed by CPI, and vice versa. When Aljabha makes a statement it’s the result of an agreement between all of its members, communists and non-communists alike. It really isn’t that complicated, so don’t play stupid.
2. The CPI and CPS have a long and complex relationships. Analyzing it goes beyond the scope of this debate, but like Miki pointed out reprinting the position of sister-parties is a long-standing tradition which doesn’t necessarily mean all opinions are shared/endorsed. If all opinions published in the CPI papers were those representing the party line you’d accuse it of being monolithic, but you seem to reject even the possibility of a plurality of voices. Furthermore, even if the CPS is wrong, having such relationships with communist and popular movements throughout the Arab would is something the CPI can be proud of. There is no other party in the country with such wide and strong relationships in the region.
3. Gurvitz, since you don’t read Arabic you obviously don’t read Alitti7ad. You are making a complex textual and metatextual analysis of something you know nothing about, and arrive at your pre-set conclusions (“Communists-bad, Communists-liers, Communists-hypocrites”) regardless of your incapacity to make them. I’d waste my time directing you at succinct quotes contradicting your statements [start here: http://bit.ly/isW7bX, but you won't be able to read them...
4. Even Hebrew, which you can read, you don't seem to follow. The claim that Elgazi's post caused CPI to change its stance doesn't coincide with the simple fact that the article by Gozansky [which Weltmann pointed you at, here: http://bit.ly/j9Nu0m was published BEFORE Elgazi's piece.
5. Your inability to make a respectable apology after laying false accusations [first that the CPI has seperate messages in Hebrew/Arabic, then that it condones Assad], or even to make a quiet retreat, is simply shameful.
Miki
In response to Yossi Gurvitz’s response to me:
As I pointed out Hadash and Maki are two different political groupings. One (Maki) is a party, the other (Hadash) is as its names states, a united front which includes Maki members. To demand that Hadash distance its self from a statement made by a completely separate political group is not only politically bizarre but completely nonsensical.
I am inclined to agree with Amos, it seems to me you are deliberately ignoring this fact and you are deliberately seeking to try and confuse the situation with ridiculous political demands in order to avoid admitting you were politically wrong.
Any political activist (or journalist) worth their salt will admit when they are wrong (even if doing so is highly embarrassing for them personally). To not do so says more about their own political shallowness, hypocrisy and sectarianism than the individual/party/group they have been wrongly accusing of wrong doing.
In relation to your second point, I have already explained that socialist parties around the world regularly publish articles by sister parties, includes ones they may not 100% agree with in order to promote discussion and debate and to provide an alternative perspective to their own. There is nothing unusual about this.
In relation to your third point, whether or not the language used by Maki in their statement was strong enough or not is a point that can be legitimately debated. However, to argue as you have done that the lack of stronger language amounts to an endorsement of the Assad regime is political nonsense. Their statement clearly condemns the regime and to continue to claim otherwise is political dishonesty on your part and does you no credit.
Amos has addressed your final point sufficiently enough, so I don’t feel the need to add any more to it.
Saeed Hotary
Syrias crimes pale in comparison to those of the zionist entity, so there is obviously less emphasis on Assads “misdeeds”. Mr Gurwitz, have you become a zionist? If so, I am very disappointed